Dems caving an acknowledgement that Bush would gladly play "chicken" w/ US soldiers lives?

[elehhhhna]

It's the only justification I can conjure up right now. Comments?

[Janice325]

1. I have no doubt that Bush would gladly play "chicken" w/US

soldiers lives. As for the Dems, I really have no earthly what they were thinking, or what the rationale was.
On MSNBC I just heard McCain's and Romney's comments regarding to Obama's and Clinton's "nay" votes, and they were truly vile. I guess most folks won't even pay attention to the fact that Obama and Clinton didn't vote "no" until after the vote outcome was already known.
I don't know what to think anymore.:-(

[elehhhhna]

2. i think we're screwn

Lampson voted Aye in the House this a.m.

I won't be volunteering for HIS next campaign, that's fersure.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

3. I can think of two justifications.

1. Corruption, they sold out to war profiteers.

2. Politics, they actually want to extend the war, hoping to capitalize on it closer to an election.

[elehhhhna]

6. 3. Blackmail 4. Bribery

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

12. I already mentioned bribery.

And you might have blackmail on a handfull, not the whole kit and kaboodle.

[elehhhhna]

17. bribery can't be mentioned enough

lol oopsie

[Demit]

4. I've often wondered that same thing about a lot of institutions Bush deals with.

Other governments, members of the press, Congressional leaders of both parties—when they meet with him on some issue, they are treated to an up close view of just how batshit insane he is. He being the man with the nuclear football, they figure that, on balance, all things considered, it would be best to tread lightly. Kind of like backing slowly away from a crazy man brandishing a knife.

[Kadie]

7. I think you may be right.

:scared:

[Bitwit1234]

5. Go to Huffingtonpost and read Murtha's statement.

After reading that I understand why the democrats voted the way they did. BUT no one is slamming and telling the truth about bush vetoing the first bill and the republicans not supporting it. The MSM is having a ha ha Yak Yak about the democrats voting to approve the funding. Nothing about bush's inhuman veto.

[magellan]

15. Then they should have sent it to him intact to veto again.

If they'd done that the 76% of Americans who favor timelines would now be doubly angry with Bush** and the Repugs instead of angry at Bush** and the Dems.

[MH1]

16. EXACTLY.

For some reason we'd rather bash Dems here than Republicans?

Oh wait! I see! The site's name's been changed to "Anti-Democratic Underground"!

:banghead:

[Az]

8. Sophie's Choice

Bush has created a Sophie's Choice for the Dems. They fight him on the funding and reduce the safety of the troops or they give in on the funding and keep the troops safe but over there longer.

If your concern is for the safety and well being of the troops then you fund them and find another way to bring them home. If your focus is on politics then you fight Bush and deny him the funding.

I suspect they thought they could use the power of the purse string to fight the war. But they found out that it just doesn't provide enough leverage and exposes the troops to danger. While they thought they could use it they took impeachment off the table. But now that they are seeing that it won't work they may put it back on the table and increase focus on the investigations and try to blast the rodent out of the office and then force the troops home.

[Edweird]

13. oh, so to save them we have to kill them?

[mmonk]

9. Nope.

Anybody who values their lives would be only using them for defense of this nation.

[npincus]

10. keeping a timeline in would have thrown Chimp the ball

and put the onus back on him. Why oh why did the Dems cave? WIMPS.

[WinkyDink]

11. What's "playing 'chicken'" when he is relishing playing KILLER??

[Edweird]

14. The only chickens I see are the dems that voted yes.

No bill = no funding = no war. This logic of "keeping them safe" by funding the war is absolutely retarded. And a LIE!